Nucleotide sequences are 98 to 99% identical in the two species, but a nucleotide sequence is not a gene. In theory, each human gene could be 2% different from its chimp counterpart, and that 2% difference could greatly affect the way each human gene functions (or does not function). For what it's worth, some geneticists have argued that the similarity is only 95% (if you factor in deletions and duplications of sequences).
If we look at the products of genes, i.e., proteins, we find that 80% of them differ between humans and chimps:
"The chimpanzee is our closest living relative. The morphological differences between the two species are so large that there is no problem in distinguishing between them. However, the nucleotide difference between the two species is surprisingly small. The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1–2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. "
Do you believe that words are more highly evolved than letters? Letters, in themselves, have no meaning. They have no informational content. The same is true for nucleotide sequences. In terms of the capacity to store and transmit information, they don't possess the emergent properties that genes have.
I'm an agreeable person, and I don't enjoy disagreeing. In this case, however, you are fundamentally wrong. The differences between humans and chimps are many, many, many times greater than the differences between Archaebacteria and Eubacteria. Yet nucleotide sequences tell us the complete opposite.
The nucleotide sequences are obtained through artificial shredding of DNA. They have no functional significance on their own. Why would they?
Do you agree that a gene is more than just the sum of its parts? If so, genes and nucleotide sequences are not comparable entities. It's like comparing apples with oranges, instead of apples with apples.
What will be the future of the races going forward? Will increased migration and communication around the world blur all racial differences that have developed evolutionarily up to this point and lead to a single "average" race, or will racial separation persist for any number of reasons?
Yes, African fertility does converge on indigenous European fertility by the time you get to the third generation. That seems to be the case for France and the UK.
Nonetheless, the magnitude of ongoing immigration, plus first and second generation fertility, will be enough to replace the indigenous peoples of Europe.
The term "indigenous" is relative. The Greenland Inuit are said to be "indigenous," even though they replaced the earlier Norse settlers some 500 to 700 years ago. Before them, Greenland was inhabited by the Dorset people.
I have no problem with using the term "indigenous" for Europeans, even if they went back no more than 1,000 years in Europe (which is clearly not the case). Actually, present-day Europeans show a high degree of genetic continuity with humans who lived in Europe thousands of years ago.
"Virtually all the major genetic components you find in contemporary Europeans are present among the earliest Europeans," said lead study author Eske Willerslev, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. "I don't think many would have predicted this."
The scientists discovered that for millennia, Europe may have been home to a so-called "metapopulation" of modern humans — a group of distinct, separate populations that regularly mixed, grew and fragmented.
There is some controversy over the contribution of Anatolian farmers to the European gene pool some 8,000 years ago. Current estimates range from a third to a quarter of the gene pool. Moreover, the Anatolian farmers seem to be a product of an earlier demographic expansion out of Europe.
In any case, 8,000 years is sufficient to make a population "indigenous."
"I have no problem with using the term "indigenous" for Europeans, even if they went back no more than 1,000 years in Europe "
- Would you have a problem using the term "indigenous" for blacks living in Europe or North America for 1,000 years? For example, blacks have already been in North America for 400 years, and in Europe for about 20-30 (much more recent), but suppose 1,000 years pass in both of these lands. Would they become indigenous after that time? I'm trying to understand who becomes indigenous and who doesn't. For instance, Jews, Gypsies, and Hungarians have lived in Europe for a long time: Jews for 2000 years, Gypsies for 1000, and Hungarians for ~800. Currently, Hungarians are absolutely considered European, Gypsies are absolutely NOT considered European, and Jews are "sort of" considered European for the most part but with lots of dissenting opinions.
As always, another well-thoughtand reasoned, gem of an essay!
To use a mathematical metaphor, I guess we might say that some differences are linear and others non-linear. Some set in motion positive feedback loops that stimulate other variations too I'd bet.
+ I offer a few questions to ponder: How does one quantify what constitutes a significant variation from one that's not? The degree to which it changes what other parameter(s)? What parameters would we choose to be relevant-meaningful to measure?
Evolutionary significance is measured by survival and reproductive success — in other words, "fitness." A physical or psychological trait, however, may increase fitness in one population and reduce it in another. This is why traits typically vary within a species, especially a wide-ranging one like our own that has adapted to a wide range of natural and cultural environments.
I could say that non-coding genes are less significant than coding genes (i.e., that code for proteins), and I could say that structural genes are less significant than regulator genes (i.e., that regulate the behavior of other genes). But none of that is always true. A non-coding gene can influence other genes just by taking up space and influencing how they interact with each other. And some structural genes are highly important.
I'm sorry I can't give a better answer. To measure the fitness of a trait (and its underlying genes), we need to measure reproductive success over several generations while controlling for possible confounds. That's a tall order.
So, if we take the primary measure of evolutionary significance as survival, reproductive success, in a word and in this context, "fitness", I have to wonder then whether evolutionary biology has a method of quantifying this (?). Is it perhaps by the measurement of species' biomass or is by numbers of individuals, or would it be better to say, as Nietzsche did, that survival is not the true goal of evolution? Nietzsche argued, if I recall and understand him correctly, that life's goal is simply to increase power, throughput rate of energy and resources (my interpretation, not explicitly stated by him), and that in fact, we should define life as the will to power. Survival and reproduction serve this goal. By the way, Jeremy England's work seems to harmonize with Nietzsche's thoughts...life as an entropy-driven/increasing process...power can be seen as a proxy for increasing entropy since when energy and resources are used, we know that entropy increases.
Would taking economic power as energy and material resource throughput per capita X population (the term that involves survival and reproduction), and using that to define evolutionary success make sense to you? Every species and population with its unique local-condition-dependent traits has a sort of "economic" power in this sense, right? Perhaps using that method might make the "tall order" a bit easier to fulfill.
I have to add too though that N clearly saw durability (survivability) as a thing that should one of the main goals of a civilization. Again though, that would be a support of power...that which does not endure no longer has any power, of course.
Everything flows from the ability to survive and reproduce. Without "being" there can be no "doing." This is almost a tautology.
To quantify reproductive success in relation to a particular trait, you have to track the reproduction of the trait-bearers in relation to the non-trait-bearers over several generations, while holding all other traits constant. That is ... difficult.
You present the distinction clearly. Surely it was also understood by Lewontin when he published his deceptive conclusion. "real, functional terms" and the genetics thereof is what matters to societies, and to the adaptation of vicariant populations of animals or plants. It is amazing that so many evolutionary biologists were silent about Lewontin's sleight of hand.
Many geneticists have a weak understanding of natural selection and evolutionary theory. There are also professional considerations: the need to get a book published or to be accepted by colleagues at a party, etc.
Humans are also 98% genetically identical to chimpanzees. That 2% difference matters a lot.
Nucleotide sequences are 98 to 99% identical in the two species, but a nucleotide sequence is not a gene. In theory, each human gene could be 2% different from its chimp counterpart, and that 2% difference could greatly affect the way each human gene functions (or does not function). For what it's worth, some geneticists have argued that the similarity is only 95% (if you factor in deletions and duplications of sequences).
If we look at the products of genes, i.e., proteins, we find that 80% of them differ between humans and chimps:
"The chimpanzee is our closest living relative. The morphological differences between the two species are so large that there is no problem in distinguishing between them. However, the nucleotide difference between the two species is surprisingly small. The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1–2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. "
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2004.11.003
Do you believe that words are more highly evolved than letters? Letters, in themselves, have no meaning. They have no informational content. The same is true for nucleotide sequences. In terms of the capacity to store and transmit information, they don't possess the emergent properties that genes have.
I'm an agreeable person, and I don't enjoy disagreeing. In this case, however, you are fundamentally wrong. The differences between humans and chimps are many, many, many times greater than the differences between Archaebacteria and Eubacteria. Yet nucleotide sequences tell us the complete opposite.
The nucleotide sequences are obtained through artificial shredding of DNA. They have no functional significance on their own. Why would they?
Do you agree that a gene is more than just the sum of its parts? If so, genes and nucleotide sequences are not comparable entities. It's like comparing apples with oranges, instead of apples with apples.
What will be the future of the races going forward? Will increased migration and communication around the world blur all racial differences that have developed evolutionarily up to this point and lead to a single "average" race, or will racial separation persist for any number of reasons?
If current demographic trends continue (and that's a big if), the world will become predominantly Sub-Saharan African.
Yes, African fertility does converge on indigenous European fertility by the time you get to the third generation. That seems to be the case for France and the UK.
Nonetheless, the magnitude of ongoing immigration, plus first and second generation fertility, will be enough to replace the indigenous peoples of Europe.
The term "indigenous" is relative. The Greenland Inuit are said to be "indigenous," even though they replaced the earlier Norse settlers some 500 to 700 years ago. Before them, Greenland was inhabited by the Dorset people.
I have no problem with using the term "indigenous" for Europeans, even if they went back no more than 1,000 years in Europe (which is clearly not the case). Actually, present-day Europeans show a high degree of genetic continuity with humans who lived in Europe thousands of years ago.
https://www.livescience.com/48660-ancient-dna-europeans-origin.html
"Virtually all the major genetic components you find in contemporary Europeans are present among the earliest Europeans," said lead study author Eske Willerslev, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. "I don't think many would have predicted this."
The scientists discovered that for millennia, Europe may have been home to a so-called "metapopulation" of modern humans — a group of distinct, separate populations that regularly mixed, grew and fragmented.
*************************************************************
There is some controversy over the contribution of Anatolian farmers to the European gene pool some 8,000 years ago. Current estimates range from a third to a quarter of the gene pool. Moreover, the Anatolian farmers seem to be a product of an earlier demographic expansion out of Europe.
In any case, 8,000 years is sufficient to make a population "indigenous."
"I have no problem with using the term "indigenous" for Europeans, even if they went back no more than 1,000 years in Europe "
- Would you have a problem using the term "indigenous" for blacks living in Europe or North America for 1,000 years? For example, blacks have already been in North America for 400 years, and in Europe for about 20-30 (much more recent), but suppose 1,000 years pass in both of these lands. Would they become indigenous after that time? I'm trying to understand who becomes indigenous and who doesn't. For instance, Jews, Gypsies, and Hungarians have lived in Europe for a long time: Jews for 2000 years, Gypsies for 1000, and Hungarians for ~800. Currently, Hungarians are absolutely considered European, Gypsies are absolutely NOT considered European, and Jews are "sort of" considered European for the most part but with lots of dissenting opinions.
As always, another well-thoughtand reasoned, gem of an essay!
To use a mathematical metaphor, I guess we might say that some differences are linear and others non-linear. Some set in motion positive feedback loops that stimulate other variations too I'd bet.
+ I offer a few questions to ponder: How does one quantify what constitutes a significant variation from one that's not? The degree to which it changes what other parameter(s)? What parameters would we choose to be relevant-meaningful to measure?
Evolutionary significance is measured by survival and reproductive success — in other words, "fitness." A physical or psychological trait, however, may increase fitness in one population and reduce it in another. This is why traits typically vary within a species, especially a wide-ranging one like our own that has adapted to a wide range of natural and cultural environments.
I could say that non-coding genes are less significant than coding genes (i.e., that code for proteins), and I could say that structural genes are less significant than regulator genes (i.e., that regulate the behavior of other genes). But none of that is always true. A non-coding gene can influence other genes just by taking up space and influencing how they interact with each other. And some structural genes are highly important.
I'm sorry I can't give a better answer. To measure the fitness of a trait (and its underlying genes), we need to measure reproductive success over several generations while controlling for possible confounds. That's a tall order.
So, if we take the primary measure of evolutionary significance as survival, reproductive success, in a word and in this context, "fitness", I have to wonder then whether evolutionary biology has a method of quantifying this (?). Is it perhaps by the measurement of species' biomass or is by numbers of individuals, or would it be better to say, as Nietzsche did, that survival is not the true goal of evolution? Nietzsche argued, if I recall and understand him correctly, that life's goal is simply to increase power, throughput rate of energy and resources (my interpretation, not explicitly stated by him), and that in fact, we should define life as the will to power. Survival and reproduction serve this goal. By the way, Jeremy England's work seems to harmonize with Nietzsche's thoughts...life as an entropy-driven/increasing process...power can be seen as a proxy for increasing entropy since when energy and resources are used, we know that entropy increases.
Would taking economic power as energy and material resource throughput per capita X population (the term that involves survival and reproduction), and using that to define evolutionary success make sense to you? Every species and population with its unique local-condition-dependent traits has a sort of "economic" power in this sense, right? Perhaps using that method might make the "tall order" a bit easier to fulfill.
I have to add too though that N clearly saw durability (survivability) as a thing that should one of the main goals of a civilization. Again though, that would be a support of power...that which does not endure no longer has any power, of course.
Everything flows from the ability to survive and reproduce. Without "being" there can be no "doing." This is almost a tautology.
To quantify reproductive success in relation to a particular trait, you have to track the reproduction of the trait-bearers in relation to the non-trait-bearers over several generations, while holding all other traits constant. That is ... difficult.
amazing
You present the distinction clearly. Surely it was also understood by Lewontin when he published his deceptive conclusion. "real, functional terms" and the genetics thereof is what matters to societies, and to the adaptation of vicariant populations of animals or plants. It is amazing that so many evolutionary biologists were silent about Lewontin's sleight of hand.
Many geneticists have a weak understanding of natural selection and evolutionary theory. There are also professional considerations: the need to get a book published or to be accepted by colleagues at a party, etc.